“Hope, Danger’s Comforter”: Thucydides, Hope, Politics

Schlosser, Joel Alden

doi:10.1017/s0022381612000941

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…“Chronic hopers” (Mencken, 1958) cultivate an ungrounded confidence that the world is tilting in their favour, which leads them to complacently lean back or recklessly disregard risks and perils. Along these lines, for instance, Thucydides describes how Athenians' delusive hopes brought about political disaster: their unlimited confidence bereaved them of the ability to judge “what was possible on the basis of their strengths and what was impracticable and exceeded their means” (Schlosser, 2013, p. 172), such that they acted in a careless, dangerous and self‐destructive manner.…”

Section: Critics Of Political Hopementioning

confidence: 99%

Hope in political philosophy

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The language of hope is a ubiquitous part of political life, but its value is increasingly contested. While there is an emerging debate about hope in political philosophy, an assessment of the prevalent scepticism about its role in political practice is still outstanding. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of historical and recent treatments of hope in political philosophy and to indicate lines of further research. We argue that even though political philosophy can draw on recent analyses of hope in analytic philosophy, there are distinct challenges for an account of hope in political contexts. Examples such as racial injustice or climate change show the need for a systematic normative account that is sensitive to the unavoidability of hope in politics as much as its characteristic dangers.The language of hope is ubiquitous in political life. Citizens hope for their cause or candidate to prevail, activists describe their fight against oppression and injustice as bolstered by shared hopes, politicians invoke hope to galvanise support. Yet, even in political discourse the value of hope no longer remains undisputed. Politicians who take on the growing disaffection by invoking hope are readily accused of leading people down the primrose path with empty rhetoric. 1 Citizens wonder which hopes can still be shared in societies characterised by deep disagreement about values and worldviews. And activists engaged in the fight against global warming prefer to instil an unvarnished fear of the imminent climate catastrophe rather than a hopeful outlook that might lead people to lean back complacently. 2 While there is an emerging debate about hope in political philosophy, an assessment of the prevalent scepticism about its role in political practice is still outstanding. In this article, we first give an overview of recent debates about the nature of hope in general (Section 1) as well as a number of critiques of hope specifically in political contexts (Section 2). Indicating lines of further research, we then zoom in on three distinct challenges for a systematic

show abstract

Section: Critics Of Political Hopementioning

confidence: 99%

Hope in political philosophy

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this article, I have demonstrated that existing research on hope as a catalyst for action demonstrates that it exerts a positive influence under specific circumstances . Hope is essential to the achievement of desired goals, but hope is not an inherently positive force; analyses of hope’s positive influence stress that the hoper must achieve ‘an intermediate state’ between ‘excesses or deficiencies’ which enables them to strive for goals while appreciating their own limitations and the need to work with others to achieve these goals (Lear, 2006: 109; see also, Schlosser, 2013: 178). Hope is a positive force, therefore, only when the ‘concrete goals’ set are achievable, when feasible ‘pathways to achieve those goals’ are devised, and crucially, when having taken ‘a reflective and developmental stance toward our own capacities as agents’ we determine whose support we need to achieve our goals (McGeer, 2004: 103–104).…”

Section: Conclusion: the Perils Of ‘Bad Hope’mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Realists are, however, generally sceptical of hope, although the term itself is rarely used explicitly; ‘hope’ is conflated with optimism and/or idealism and framed pejoratively through the use of terms such as ‘delusion’ or ‘utopianism’ (Kagan, 2008; Mearsheimer, 2018; Walt, 2019). Within Realism there is, as such, very little specific analysis of the meaning of hope as a distinct concept, its various manifestations and the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ hope (see Schlosser, 2013; Sleat, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 12. Similarly, according to Joel Alden Schlosser (2013), despite hope’s centrality to political action ‘scholars have paid scant attention to its overarching significance’ (p. 169); Adrienne Martin (2016) also argues, ‘Hope in general is not often discussed by philosophers, particularly secular philosophers outside of the phenomenological tradition’ (p. 140), while Bovens (1999) describes the lack of attention afforded to hope as ‘a scandal’ (p. 667; see also, Eagleton, 2015: xi; Lindroth and Sinevaara-Niskanen, 2019: 644; Moellendorf, 2006: 423). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘An expensive commodity’? The impact of hope on US foreign policy during the ‘unipolar moment’

Hehir

2023

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Imperial overstretch’ and the role played by related ideational issues derived from particular liberal tenets and the United States’ belief in its ‘manifest destiny’ to lead the world have been regularly cited as explanations for why the United States’ ambitious project to transform the world in the post–Cold War era failed. In this article, I argue that these analyses have overlooked a crucial causal factor that also impelled the United States to undertake its ultimately doomed project: hope. I demonstrate that analyses of hope’s influence have found that while hope can exert a positive influence, it can also – if irrational – induce self-destructive behaviour. During the period of unipolarity, the United States repeatedly advanced teleological visions of a bright future for humanity routinely infused with the language of hope. I demonstrate that hope was, however, more than just a discursive device; it was itself a catalyst for the United States’ actions. I argue that a confluence of factors at the end of the Cold War aligned to impel the rapid emergence of a particular variant of hope – defined as ‘wilful hope’ – which inspired the United States to act as it did. I demonstrate how this disposition was evident in the rhetoric employed by both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush but also – more importantly – in the strategies they each implemented. Ultimately, this disposition played a crucial – though not exclusive – role in undermining international support for US leadership and precipitating the end of ‘the unipolar moment’.

show abstract

“…Since Pericles’ rhetorical capacity to manage the emotions of the demos is the key to his statesmanship in Thucydides’ own view, it seems that Pericles regarded the Athenians as so abjectly terrified of their perceived bad luck that they required an injection of pure hope (see Ahrensdorf 2000, esp. 589–590; Schlosser 2013). This rhetorical gambit worked: according to Thucydides, the Athenians “were persuaded on the public matter, and no longer sent embassies to the Lacedaemonians, but applied themselves more to the war” (2.65.2).…”

Section: Pericles Luck Statesmanshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Significance of Luck: A Thucydidean Perspective

Schillinger

2020

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary authorities invoke luck to explain the arbitrariness of economic success, to emphasize our shared vulnerability to disaster, and to urge more generous policy, legislation, and governance. According to Robert Frank, Martha Nussbaum, and Ronald Dworkin, for example, extreme bad luck can befall individuals no matter what they know or do. By redefining luck as a psychological phenomenon (rather than as a constitutive principle of the world), this article challenges the contemporary consensus. My approach to luck arises out of my engagement with the political thought of Thucydides. Whereas influential interpreters present Thucydides as a witness to the crushing power of bad luck, and whereas they criticize Thucydides’ Pericles for being insufficiently deferential to luck, I revisit and defend Pericles’ skeptical and psychological approach to luck, and I argue that Thucydides shares this approach, at least in the main. The pathological intellectual and emotional responses to apparent good or bad luck diagnosed by Pericles in his final speech recur throughout the History and influence the evolution of the whole war. Going beyond Pericles, Thucydides shows that the appeal of luck arises out of a human need to explain, beautify, or lament what is merely natural necessity, haphazard coincidence, or awful suffering.

show abstract

“Hope, Danger’s Comforter”: Thucydides, Hope, Politics

Cited by 13 publications

References 8 publications

Hope in political philosophy

Hope in political philosophy

‘An expensive commodity’? The impact of hope on US foreign policy during the ‘unipolar moment’

The Political Significance of Luck: A Thucydidean Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About